At the 50th Anniversary Summer Meeting of the CMS in June, 1995, CWM
sponsored an evening of public lectures entitled "Women in today's
mathematical world". Invited speakers for the evening were Lee Lorch
(York University) and Cora Sadosky (Howard University). Many thanks to
both speakers for a most interesting and thought-provoking evening.
Excerpts from Dr. Sadosky's talk appeared in the Sept-Oct 1995 AWM
Newsletter. We have the kind permission of AWM and Dr. Sadosky to post
this article on Camel.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: WHAT IS IT AND WHAT SHOULD IT BE?

by Dr. Cora Sadosky

People often remark that in the last decade the situation of
women in mathematics has dramatically improved, both in
Canada and in the United States. And they are right! The
most immediate example is the election, as the new President
of the CMS, of Katherine Heinrich, who not only is a
talented mathematician and a great organizer who happens to
be a woman, but is a very active militant for women's
inclusion in mathematics.

This is but one sign. A few months ago, Ingrid Daubechies, a
young mother of two toddlers, became the first woman full
professor of mathematics at Princeton University, where, for
the first time in its history, half a dozen young women at
different ranks are teaching (and doing!) math.

So, some people argue, "You see, it was a matter of time,
things are improving, why do you persist with your sessions
on women in math?"

Well, why indeed. One reason is that what has been achieved,
although considerable -- against the bleak background of a
field where women were invisible only a few years ago -- is
still quite modest. More importantly, what has been achieved
can be reversed, and a slight change of social climate can
provide a good pretext for such reversal. The current
powerful drives against affirmative action both in the
United States and in Canada are a case in point. Examples
show that when there are no reminders about women
mathematicians, colleagues tend not to "remember" us.

Just one such example: the invited participation of women in
the International Congresses of Mathematicians (ICMs).
Singular, yet illustrative of the general situation of women
in math and how we may be ignored. In more than a century of
ICMs there had been no women plenary speakers until 1932
(Emmy Noether), and not another one until 1990 (Karen
Uhlenbeck). Before the 80's only a handful of women were
among the hundreds of invited speakers. After a public
protest at ICM 78 on the systematic omission, a few women
were invited to speak at ICM 82 (which met in Warsaw in
1983). But no further reminder about women was made there,
and none were initially invited to ICM 86, resulting in new
protests, some late invitations, and more women at ICM 90.
Finally, in 1990, the International Mathematical Union (IMU)
passed a resolution "to take into account that many
qualified women were available as speakers for ICM 94." This
brought to the latest ICM the unprecedented number of ten
women invited speakers (out of a total of a hundred and
sixty five lecturers), two of them delivering plenary
lectures. At every ICM which was not preceded by an explicit
reminder
to consider women candidates, many outstanding
mathematicians were passed over.

This historical sequence points to two needs: to alert the
community about women's existence and to make constant
reminders.

Was the "reminder resolution" of IMU a call to overlook
standards? The larger representation of women at ICM 94 in
no way diluted its mathematical quality. On the contrary,
the plenary addresses of Ingrid Daubechies and Marina Ratner
at Zurich were indisputably among the best. No chauvinistic
critic challenged, at least publicly, the excellence of
women's contributions.

The discrimination against women had been generic, not
specific or personal. Yet it had not disappeared, as
suggested by the numbers, and there seemed to be an
invisible "quota system." The eight women nonplenary
speakers lectured in eight of the seventeen sessions, one in
each session. It seemed as if the selection panels, although
aware enough to consider women candidates, felt that they
had filled their duty as soon as the first one accepted. And
this is not an isolated occurrence.

A personal anecdote: Years ago, a friendly colleague told me
his department was considering hiring a junior person in our
field and asked me for a top candidate. After some thought I
mentioned one of the best junior researchers in the field.
His answer was "But we already have a woman!" and mine to
him, "So, would you hire a man for the job? I assume your
faculty already has at least one man!"

Do women need "special treatment" not to be overlooked? For
a variety of reasons, not all of them obvious, the answer
seems to be yes. And it provides the rationale for the
prizes, honorary lectures and mathematical events "for women
only." Is that "reverse discrimination?" I don't think so.

Both the American and the Canadian Mathematical Societies
have recently instituted new honors specially designated for
women. Let me analyze the example of the Ruth Satter Prize
of the AMS, dedicated by the well-known mathematician Joan
Birman to the memory of her sister, a chemist. Many people
frowned at a prize for women mathematicians. Don't we have
enough prizes in the Society? Don't they go to deserving
people? Yes to both questions! But none of them have gone to
women. Is it because there are no deserving women
candidates? Maybe so, but when the Satter Prize went first
to Dusa McDuff -- later elected FRS (Fellow of the Royal
Society) -- and then to Lai-Sang Young and to Sun-Yung Alice
Chang, each a leader in her field, nobody felt there had
been the dreaded "lowering of standards." These are top
researchers, worthy of the highest honors, that could
compete for any prize. But it took the creation of the
Satter Prize to highlight their achievements.

These recognitions have an educational effect on the
mathematical community. Not only do some individuals get
their due, but more significantly, their merits are
explained and publicized. Thus our whole community learns
that there are women who have made outstanding
contributions, and what those contributions are. This is
especially important in the case of younger people, like
Lai-San Young, who had already influenced their fields, but
who may not have been recognized outside them.

Recognition is important if we want to reach the people who
do not want to discriminate, but who cannot remember the
name of a woman mathematician when the time comes to make a
nomination for an editorial board or a selection committee.

And let's be fair. How is it with each of us? I can speak
from experience. It required conscientious training to
"remember" women every time I had to put together a
conference or a program. I knew only men! Well then, look
for women, even if you do not know them personally. Chances
are that you do not know them because nobody else
"remembers" them, so they go to fewer places where they can
meet others.

Do we need to go to extra lengths to find suitable speakers
who happen to belong to underrepresented groups? Absolutely
yes. The fact that the first name that comes to mind is that
of somebody well known, who happens to be white and male,
should make us automatically think about what other person,
who happens to be non-white and/or female and not as well
known, would make us proud to bring to the same event.

The problem is not so much those diehard retrogrades who
hate women intellectuals on principle and talk about our
less-developed brains and our innate inferiority. The
problem is the honest people who insist they do not
discriminate and are against quotas (those favoring women
and minorities, mind you) and who may earnestly think that
everything will be okay if only we ignore the issue, and
just use initials before last names to conceal gender.

The problem is the good guys of both genders who are not
trained to be good enough. To them we have to provide
information and the opportunities to get in contact with
women mathematicians whom they can admire, as well as women
colleagues they have to respect. And then ask everybody to
remember every day that there are people who may be
different from them, yet still love to do what we love to
do: mathematics.

A question often asked when discussing affirmative action
measures toward women and other underrepresented groups is
"Will they feel demeaned by being included through such a
measure?"

Many times I had friends telling me "Certainly you'd be
offended to receive an offer because of your gender and not
your mathematics!" Sure I would, if the offer was not
appropriate to the level of my mathematics. But I would find
it much more offensive if an offer for which I was
mathematically competent did not come because of my gender!

As I favor affirmative action measures, let me be explicit
about my own "golden rule": to accept each opportunity that
one deserves; to reject any exaggerated offer that would
make one stick out as a "token" and is thus made just to
fulfill some real or imaginary "quota." Of course, one needs
a high level of self-confidence to follow such a rule, and
self-confidence is much less abundant among young women
mathematicians than among their male counterparts.

This lack of confidence does not come about by chance. Many
women have faced a lifetime of suspicion about their talent,
their commitment to work, their credentials. So, how would
they feel about getting a job just because there is an
opening in a "female slot?" Badly, unless they join a group
that wants them and wants to take advantage of such a slot
as a gain to the group. Thus the solution is much more up to
the group than to the individual, and there is where
education is needed.

Senior women can make a difference. For instance, by not
frowning at special programs for women, but taking advantage
of them and, thus, making them acceptable, and even
desirable, for younger women.

Let me, through an example, be specific here. In 1982 the
National Science Foundation started a program of Visiting
Professorships for Women in Science and Technology, which
yearly sponsors a score of women to visit top institutions.
This program highlights the existence of women scientists in
places where there are few or no women faculty. It has
enabled, for instance, outstanding women engineers working
outside academia to teach engineering students who had never
encountered a woman engineer before. In the case of
mathematics, it provided a great opportunity for financial
support for women researchers to work at top institutions.

But at first it took some courage to apply! Who wanted to be
singled-out as going places "as a woman?" Fortunately,
"somebody" did, the opportunity was put to good use, no
stigma was attached, and soon the numbers soared. Now the
list of past recipients of this award looks like a "who's
who" of women mathematicians in the U.S. It became
prestigious, and some institutions offer it as a possibility
(which is obviously to their own advantage, since someone
else pays) to the mathematicians they want to invite and who
happen to be women.

So, the program turned out to become a successful way to
have more women at institutions where they will be well
received, where they will highlight the existence of women
researchers to predominantly male faculties and to graduate
students of both genders, and where they themselves will
have excellent research opportunities.

Affirmative action programs of this sort are useful,
economical, and produce a lot of good, both to individuals
and to their communities. It is up to us to see that they do
not disappear in the current anti-affirmative-action
hysteria sweeping the United States, and that, on the
contrary, they are increased at various levels of the
educational and research pipelines.

The gains of recent decades could be wiped out in one
generation, just as the ICM program committees forgot to
invite women as soon as the reminding pressure was relaxed.

We have achieved much. But we are striving for nothing less
than the right of all people to do mathematics. For that we
have to work together, women and men, so that the
mathematical community is weaned from the need for constant
reminders of the existence of women in its midst.

When the biggest affirmative action effort in the history of
humankind -- that favoring white males -- ceases, no further
affirmative action will be needed and we will all have more
time to concentrate on mathematics.